<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Trusteer survey reports 60% of users re-use online banking credentials on other websites</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.onlinebankingreviews.co.uk/2010/03/trusteer-survey-reports-60-of-users-re-use-online-banking-credentials-on-other-websites/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.onlinebankingreviews.co.uk/2010/03/trusteer-survey-reports-60-of-users-re-use-online-banking-credentials-on-other-websites/</link>
	<description>News, Reviews &#38; Your Views.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:05:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jack</title>
		<link>http://www.onlinebankingreviews.co.uk/2010/03/trusteer-survey-reports-60-of-users-re-use-online-banking-credentials-on-other-websites/comment-page-1/#comment-253</link>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Oct 2010 09:38:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://79.170.44.86/onlinebankingreviews.co.uk/?p=603#comment-253</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t re-use login details, and I don&#039;t know anyone who does, so I don&#039;t know how this survey was based.

In any case, given the cosy arrangement between Trusteer and the banks who push their largely pointless software (unnecessary if you have good sense and decent security software - pointless if you don&#039;t) I&#039;m not sure I&#039;d be that confident in anything they have to say on security.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t re-use login details, and I don&#8217;t know anyone who does, so I don&#8217;t know how this survey was based.</p>
<p>In any case, given the cosy arrangement between Trusteer and the banks who push their largely pointless software (unnecessary if you have good sense and decent security software &#8211; pointless if you don&#8217;t) I&#8217;m not sure I&#8217;d be that confident in anything they have to say on security.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jack</title>
		<link>http://www.onlinebankingreviews.co.uk/2010/03/trusteer-survey-reports-60-of-users-re-use-online-banking-credentials-on-other-websites/comment-page-1/#comment-202</link>
		<dc:creator>Jack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:05:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://79.170.44.86/onlinebankingreviews.co.uk/?p=603#comment-202</guid>
		<description>60%???   Total BS - I don&#039;t believe it.  I don&#039;t do it and I don&#039;t know anyone else that does.  Trusteer is selling its snake-oil product to banks on the basis - IMHO - of some very selective testing and statistics.  We do need some fresh answers to online security - Rapport isn&#039;t it.  Until then, a good set of security applications, a good firewall, and above all a lot of cautious common sense will do a lot better than products like this that no-one outside of the banking industry seems to place any credence in.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>60%???   Total BS &#8211; I don&#8217;t believe it.  I don&#8217;t do it and I don&#8217;t know anyone else that does.  Trusteer is selling its snake-oil product to banks on the basis &#8211; IMHO &#8211; of some very selective testing and statistics.  We do need some fresh answers to online security &#8211; Rapport isn&#8217;t it.  Until then, a good set of security applications, a good firewall, and above all a lot of cautious common sense will do a lot better than products like this that no-one outside of the banking industry seems to place any credence in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

